and many more benefits!

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Show Tags

09 Aug 2017, 09:54

"In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."

The argument claims that people are not as concerned with limiting their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they previously were. Although this is a seemingly reasonable statement, the evidence the argument utilizes to make its point is lacking. Consequently, the argument is unconvincing due to that many unreasonable assumptions embedded throughout its supporting evidence.

The first issue with the argument's presented evidence is the limited scope and unclear widespread applicability. By using a local case involving only three businesses, such a sweeping claim that "people are not as concerned..." is not fully addressed. It is entirely possible that these three businesses are located in a town that is particularly fond of meat, and so the House of Beef being successful may be a result of a localized state that is not representative of the entire country. In order to significantly improve the argument, I would recommend that the author uses examples from across the country, or communicate that the town these three businesses are located in is representative of the greater area.

Secondly, we do not know the relative size of each of these three businesses, or what the full range of product sold is. This is an important point given that, the conclusion of the argument mentions both meat and fatty cheeses, but we do not know if the Good Earth Cafe even sells these cheeses, just as we don't know if the House of Beef sells them. To improve this argument, it is critical to supply more information about the items sold by these businesses, and whether these items have sold more recently than a decade ago - holding price and selection constant.

Thirdly, the argument assumes that the success of the new House of Beef has made the owners millionaires, but it is entirely possible that these owners did not earn their wealth from this "new" restaurant. This is an important point given that this is really the only form of evidence that the author has made to prove that people care more about red meat and fatty cheeses than they used to. For this reason, I would recommend that the author include the profitability of each business in the argument given that, if we do not know the House of Beef's profitability, as well as the profitability of Heart's Delight and the Good Earth Cafe, than we do not know if one business is actually more successful. Essentially, an owners wealth can be correlated with the success of their businesses, but the two are not certainly causal.

In its current state, the argument is unable to fully support the sweeping generalization that is found within its conclusion. In order to support such a stance, the author should ensure that all comparisons are made using all relevant information, and that as many external factors that could harm the conclusion are mitigated or factored out of the discussion. If the author would like to dramatically improve this conclusion, I would recommend using nationwide data concerning eating trends between now and a decade ago. Such information is much stronger at suggesting a trend than a localized example using only three businesses.